I'm not saying X1 can't do well. Just saying you are comparing vastly dissimilar markets.

MS has a bigger commitment to TV than they did with the Xbox or 360 COMBINED as well. In fact, the shift in focus to TV by far trumps their progress in exclusives in comparison. Not even close.

"reality"

You act like the focus on TV functionality was at the expense of gaming. I'd accept that notion had the gaming commitment decreased instead of increasing. The fact they made bigger commitment to TV than they did with the Xbox and 360 combined? How about they made a bigger commitment to EVERYTHING than the Xbox and 360 COMBINED!

Other than a PERCEPTION problem for some, how exactly did their focus on TV functionality affect the gaming side of the equation? Plenty of people $#@!ing about the TV focus and nobody can explain how that affected the gaming side of things. It certainly didn't affect the specs other than adding an HDMI-IN port. It's not like we would have had twice as many exclusives announced then they did, had they not focused on TV functions.

The fact the processing power is less than the PS4 had to do with a design calculation and not it's TV functionality. Sony GAMBLED and waited for GDDR5. MS decided not to risk the gamble and went with DDR3. In order to compensate for the bandwidth issues of DDR3, they had to dedicate silicon to ESRAM that otherwise would have gone into GPU CUs that could have matched the PS4's chip in processing power. In order to match the PS4's chip in computing power AND have the ESRAM to deal with the DDR3's bandwidth issues, it would have taken a much bigger chip....and a much bigger price tag for the chip as a result. That has NOTHING to do with TV functionality focus.

You act like the focus on TV functionality was at the expense of gaming. I'd accept that notion had the gaming commitment decreased instead of increasing. The fact they made bigger commitment to TV than they did with the Xbox and 360 combined? How about they made a bigger commitment to EVERYTHING than the Xbox and 360 COMBINED!

Other than a PERCEPTION problem for some, how exactly did their focus on TV functionality affect the gaming side of the equation? Plenty of people $#@!ing about the TV focus and nobody can explain how that affected the gaming side of things. It certainly didn't affect the specs other than adding an HDMI-IN port. It's not like we would have had twice as many exclusives announced then they did, had they not focused on TV functions.

The fact the processing power is less than the PS4 had to do with a design calculation and not it's TV functionality. Sony GAMBLED and waited for GDDR5. MS decided not to risk the gamble and went with DDR3. In order to compensate for the bandwidth issues of DDR3, they had to dedicate silicon to ESRAM that otherwise would have gone into GPU CUs that could have matched the PS4's chip in processing power. In order to match the PS4's chip in computing power AND have the ESRAM to deal with the DDR3's bandwidth issues, it would have taken a much bigger chip....and a much bigger price tag for the chip as a result. That has NOTHING to do with TV functionality focus.

You act like the focus on TV functionality was at the expense of gaming. I'd accept that notion had the gaming commitment decreased instead of increasing. The fact they made bigger commitment to TV than they did with the Xbox and 360 combined? How about they made a bigger commitment to EVERYTHING than the Xbox and 360 COMBINED!

too early to say what it would be against the 360, especially the first 4 years of 360. The studios are less qualified this time around and we have no precedence to go with.

But if you think the TV functionality “isn’t” at the expense of gaming then you don’t get it and never will. You are not only paying more for it with money, you’re paying more for it with your system resources, and you’re paying more for it due to the fact that you will have less potential to have more games because “budgets are finite”. Yes, it is exactly at the expense of gaming. But a fair point can be made, would MS have spent more on gaming, if they had not spent on TV (and other things)? Probably not because it’s difficult to sustain that for Sony, I can certainly understand MS not going hardcore into it.

Other than a PERCEPTION problem for some, how exactly did their focus on TV functionality affect the gaming side of the equation? Plenty of people $#@!ing about the TV focus and nobody can explain how that affected the gaming side of things. It certainly didn't affect the specs other than adding an HDMI-IN port. It's not like we would have had twice as many exclusives announced then they did, had they not focused on TV functions.

lol. Thought I explained it in this thread…maybe it was a different one. They wouldn’t need 3 OSs if they didn’t have TV. Apps are nice and all but apps alone wouldn’t have justified the snap feature, which is the big deal in their new presentation.

There’s a reason OS and Kinect reserves 10%. Being a TV tuner means processing power (GPU/CPU) and RAM required. Snap feature means more GPU/CPU and RAM required. Kinect means the same thing. All of these things take up a total of 10% of the system’s resources.

The last part, yes, I agree with that, MS would not have done that anyway. But you’re still paying with system resources and the fact that you paid for system resources you may or may not use. If you will use TV/Kinect then that’s great, if not then you paid for it anyway.

The fact the processing power is less than the PS4 had to do with a design calculation and not it's TV functionality. Sony GAMBLED and waited for GDDR5. MS decided not to risk the gamble and went with DDR3.

You think MS would have gone for a more powerful console otherwise? I don’t think so. Making a cheap console with kinect was part of their plan. No, they would not be able to sell you a console with 8GBs of GDDR5 RAM for $599. That would be worse.

In order to compensate for the bandwidth issues of DDR3, they had to dedicate silicon to ESRAM that otherwise would have gone into GPU CUs that could have matched the PS4's chip in processing power. In order to match the PS4's chip in computing power AND have the ESRAM to deal with the DDR3's bandwidth issues, it would have taken a much bigger chip....and a much bigger price tag for the chip as a result. That has NOTHING to do with TV functionality focus.

I don’t get your point. Of course they would’ve, they could’ve easily gone with a more powerful console, but their focus was Kinect and they can’t sell you a console that would be more than $599 (considering if they had built one that rivaled the PS4 and had Kinect). They had to keep the costs down because Kinect is part of the reason they are sticking around.

Sony has reserved resources for functions other than gaming as well. Like their OS RAM allocation. So they can be accused of the same "other functions" at the expense of gaming too.....but are conveniently being given a pass. Kinect 2 is taking up CPU resources.... but it's a gaming related device. The TV stuff is in addition to these gaming functions.....they aren't the primary function or focus. Otherwise the Kinect 1 would have been sufficient for TV functions on Xbox One. No need for improved Kinect specs for that stuff. You don't need a 1080p camera and better sensors to do that.

Sony has reserved resources for functions other than gaming as well. Like their OS RAM allocation. So they can be accused of the same "other functions" at the expense of gaming too.....but are conveniently being given a pass.

Maybe they're given a pass by others but not me. I was quite critical of the 3GB OS reservation. It's only recently that I've sort of accepted that a big chunk of that reservation may be for the sharing/recording/social and keeping the OS quick (instant resume would require you to keep all of OS in RAM during standby).

They aren't directly related to gaming but I can give instant resume a pass somewhat, I almost had to reconsider my purchase (which I reconsidered anyway due to other circumstances as I don't own a PS4) but after seeing live streams, I get it. I think it's definitely needed just like X-game chat was needed last gen.

Kinect 2 is taking up CPU resources.... but it's a gaming related device. The TV stuff is in addition to these gaming functions.....they aren't the primary function or focus. Otherwise the Kinect 1 would have been sufficient for TV functions on Xbox One. No need for improved Kinect specs for that stuff. You don't need a 1080p camera and better sensors to do that.

actually for the purpose of what they're doing with the ads and how the camera tracks you with such precision, yes, kinect 2 would still be somewhat important.

i love the device actually, i would rather have kinect 2 than whatever PS4 has now. i would not want the resources being reserved though. that just does not fall into my principles. You should not have to give up something for something that you will hardly use. Now if the games that HAD kinect 2 features, took up 10% of the resources, I can deal with that...but that would effectively eliminate the integration side of Kinect 2 so I understand. I just don't like it.

at this point, i personally don't think we'll see about as much out of kinect 2 that we saw with kinect. i'd love to be proven wrong because i'm a fan of these sort of controls but i'm getting more skeptical as MS continues to ignore it and especially after the revealed the advertisement deal. it seems like the device is more purposeful for data tracking than gaming.

why else would you need any game to track your expressions? yea, you can think of interesting stuff but really, it's not practical. the device itself wasn't made with the intent of games/menus only.

Well this was kinda expected. We have to wait until some real tech wizards show us what the future of motion control could look like. Apple TV maybe ? From MS i don´t expect any mind blowing changes with Kinect. Everyone already knew since 2008 how Kinect is gonna working and how useful it would be in games. Not very much so why would this be any better today ? MS are not the guys were you get some ground breaking innovation that will dominate a decade. The last big thing that MS has done was Windows and that was in the freaking 80s !

Well this was kinda expected. We have to wait until some real tech wizards show us what the future of motion control could look like. Apple TV maybe ? From MS i don´t expect any mind blowing changes with Kinect. Everyone already knew since 2008 how Kinect is gonna working and how useful it would be in games. Not very much so why would this be any better today ? MS are not the guys were you get some ground breaking innovation that will dominate a decade. The last big thing that MS has done was Windows and that was in the freaking 80s !

Well, in this case you really can't judge the tech by the games. From my experience this kinect is much better than the first. This game does a poor job of showing that.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.